From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 20:35:14 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lei Subject: Re: __vmalloc() vs. GFP_NOIO/GFP_NOFS Message-ID: <20160103203514.GN9938@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160103071246.GK9938@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160103201233.GC6682@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160103201233.GC6682@dastard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:12:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > That'd be a nice start, though it doesn't address callers of > vm_map_ram() which also has hard-coded GFP_KERNEL allocation masks > for various allocations. ... all 3 of them, that is - XFS, android/ion/ion_heap.c and v4l2-core. 5 call sites total. Adding a gfp_t argument to those shouldn't be an issue... BTW, far scarier one is not GFP_NOFS or GFP_IO - there's a weird caller passing GFP_ATOMIC to __vmalloc(), for no reason I can guess. _That_ really couldn't be handled without passing gfp_t to page allocation primitives, but I very much doubt that it's needed there at all; it's in alloc_large_system_hash() and I really cannot imagine a situation when it would be used in e.g. a nonblocking context. Folks, what is that one for? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org